Appeal 2007-1261
Application 10/196,523
Claim 7 is rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
claims 1, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected over Tanabe in view
of Ohnishi;
claim 12 is rejected over these references and further in view of
Rogers; and
claim 17 is rejected over Tanabe in view of Ohnishi and Jenekhe.
OPINION
We will sustain these rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Answer and below.
The § 112, first paragraph, rejection.
The written description requirement of § 112, first paragraph,
mandates that the Specification must describe the invention sufficiently to
convey to a person of skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the
claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Lizard Tech, Inc. v.
Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1344-45, 76 USPQ2d 1724,
1731 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Independent claim 1 is directed to the "second embodiment" described
on page 10 of the Specification, wherein the emitting layer comprises
alternating layers of electron transport material and hole transport material.
For this "second embodiment," only two molecular electron transport layer
materials are explicitly disclosed, one of which is tris(8-quinolinolato)
aluminum. This last mentioned material is one of the light emitting
molecules defined by dependent claim 7. In addition to tris(8-quinolinolato)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013